BREAKING: Islamic State, in video titled "A Message to America," beheads American journalist James Wright Foley.
I believe he was captured 3 years ago or so.
I accidentally came across the graphic pics.....you don't want to go there.
Also they are threatening to behead another journalist. Sick, sick bastards.
Quote:
I hope I am wrong but sadly will likely not get near the attention or outrage that the situation in Ferguson has gotten.
Because Ferguson doesn't deserve attention or outrage? That seems to be what you're insinuating here... believe it or not it's possible to multi-task with attention and outrage.
Do you expect the same coverage on television?
Quote:
In comment 11815343 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I hope I am wrong but sadly will likely not get near the attention or outrage that the situation in Ferguson has gotten.
Because Ferguson doesn't deserve attention or outrage? That seems to be what you're insinuating here... believe it or not it's possible to multi-task with attention and outrage.
Do you expect the same coverage on television?
It's the main headline on CNN.com... yeah, I expect similar coverage... but I'd think civil issues in our country might trump our country's television coverage? I'm glad that's your concern.
Enough said. Thanks for your service.
Quote:
that the Islamic world needs to stand up and fight along side the "West" against these people who claim to represent their entire nation of people? Muslims around the world can't possibly accept these people as their representatives as the "Islamic Nation". Can they?
Yes, they need to stand up but they haven't and I don't think they will. They let the tail wag the dog if that's even a good analogy. No one on the Islamic side speaks up against virtually anything that the most evil and extreme Islamists do. At some point you have to ask why, don't you?
Any reasonable person would ask why, yes.
Overseer, actually I think they do have a better idea of what we are dealing with than any other population on the planet. And yes I think they have a more accurate perspective on the goals of radical organizations because they've been dealing with it for 60+ years on a more consistent basis than anyone. So I can imagine their private discussions when they get off the phone with John Kerry or other US politicians who preach restraint and diplomacy. They must think some of the desired responses to violence and terrorist threats as idealist and at times laughable.
\
I just hope he is decisive.
We can't simply begin the wholesale killing of innocent people.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why we can't have nice things.
He approved dropping bombs and sending equipment. Whatever the merits of not trying to drive a harder bargain with Maliki a couple years ago, that is in the past. We don't have a stomach for another large-scale commitment. Maybe we could step up the air campaign but this is probably a reasonable reading of what the American people are willing to do right now.
You are conflating two separate things. If you want to argue that the pleas for a ceasefire with Hamas are/were foolhardy, fine. But - and this is me repeating what I've previously said to you - the United States is not "twiddling their thumbs" and exercising restraint with ISIS. Knock the CiC for a dilatory response, okay, but they're presently being bombed by US war planes and their regional enemies armed, and it will likely be stepped up more.
So I remain confused about your rather muddled position.
I mean, it had to be made by a dullard.
Quote:
We killed plenty of Germans, Japanese, Vietnamese Iraqis. War is hell.
And this ladies and gentlemen is why we can't have nice things.
Those Vietnamese Iraqis were a bitch!
Thanks to the posters who added some insight.
Quote:
will our soft President do something ?
He approved dropping bombs and sending equipment. Whatever the merits of not trying to drive a harder bargain with Maliki a couple years ago, that is in the past. We don't have a stomach for another large-scale commitment. Maybe we could step up the air campaign but this is probably a reasonable reading of what the American people are willing to do right now.
Precisely.
Yeahh... No. Let's not punish their innocent family members like it's the 1500s.
I actually don't think we would. And that's independent of soft or tough presidents, predating them likely back to Vietnam. It's who we are. And I honestly think it's why terrorism and Putin, and a whole raft of the like are so successful.
Somehow I don't think you know much about their culture if you think that is the only effective deterrent.
That said- let's not be so incredibly stupid to think that the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
JFC, some of you are fucking stupid and cry about the dumbest shit.
Besides, everybody knows that our Muslim president won't wage war against his own people. His middle name is "Hussein" for Christ's sake! What else more do you need to know about him?
That said- let's not be so incredibly stupid to think that the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
JFC, some of you are fucking stupid and cry about the dumbest shit.
Besides, everybody knows that our Muslim president won't wage war against his own people. His middle name is "Hussein" for Christ's sake! What else more do you need to know about him?
What a completely idiotic, moronic, and just flat out obsurd thing to say... Of course the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
I think he's on to something. Or on something. Or both, as ABSURD as it may sound.
Quote:
important than ISIS, no?
That said- let's not be so incredibly stupid to think that the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
JFC, some of you are fucking stupid and cry about the dumbest shit.
Besides, everybody knows that our Muslim president won't wage war against his own people. His middle name is "Hussein" for Christ's sake! What else more do you need to know about him?
What a completely idiotic, moronic, and just flat out obsurd thing to say... Of course the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
I don't think that there is much evidence that they can deal with one.
That said- let's not be so incredibly stupid to think that the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
JFC, some of you are fucking stupid and cry about the dumbest shit.
Besides, everybody knows that our Muslim president won't wage war against his own people. His middle name is "Hussein" for Christ's sake! What else more do you need to know about him?
The original premise is false of course, but I think at least some gov't action is influenced by the news cycle which focuses public attention. So to the extent that *we* know or care about ISIS, the headlines play a role IMO and perhaps there are ripples.
But your other point is an interesting one IMO and perhaps different people will view it differently. I actually think ISIS dwarfs Ferguson. The latter is localized and will shortly be resolved one way or another and then will recede. I see it as a midwest Trayvon Martin and I think it's water-cooler stuff right now but won't make much national impact. I'm not saying that it's not important or newsworthy because it is. But it's a flareup. OTOH, should ISIS eventually lead to us committing to real combat, which I believe it will or a huge and horrific terrorist attack within the States, which I believe it could, then I view that as being more broadly important than Ferguson.
Quote:
important than ISIS, no?
That said- let's not be so incredibly stupid to think that the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
JFC, some of you are fucking stupid and cry about the dumbest shit.
Besides, everybody knows that our Muslim president won't wage war against his own people. His middle name is "Hussein" for Christ's sake! What else more do you need to know about him?
What a completely idiotic, moronic, and just flat out obsurd thing to say... Of course the government can't deal with more than one problem at a time.
Wrong! the government can't handle even one problem at a time :)
Really can't argue with that, and I agree with the premise (for the most part).
I worry that things are already a lot further along than it ever got with Trayvon, and that the perception that many folks have re: injustice in the Trayvon case only fuels the fire with perceived injustice in this case.
IMO, things will get much worse before they get better. Of course, I hope I'm wrong and you are correct that it will blow over quickly.
Link - ( New Window )
can i ask what magic pixie dust would you have let you arm the moderate syrians last year but kept the weapons out of isis?
Here’s A Picture Of John McCain Hanging Out With ISIS Freedom Fighters In 2013 - ( New Window )
It would be irresponsible to support a national security policy dependent on infeasible military operations or ludicrous assumptions about an enemy’s shortcomings. War is a matter of matching ends, ways, and means – including political and popular support. It would therefore be irresponsible to support a policy that would require a level of commitment that our political institutions do not possess. Our discourse is too broken. Short of a major terrorist attack, our leaders do not have the ability to produce consensus. And without real national consensus to sustain a strategy, there is no viable mechanism to defeat ISIL.
include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. But that has not prevented a slew of hacks and wonks from suggesting grandiose policy goals without paying serious attention to the costs of implementation and the fragility of the U.S. political consensus for achieving those goals.
There are few remaining serious voices on foreign policy left in DC a la a Dick Luger. Even on the more highbrow Sunday show, there is so much empty bluster which purports to have easy solutions..."we must take urgent action" etc etc...and we are all worse off for it.
Who are some worthwhile voices then, in your view?
As far as post Cold War foreign policy chops, George H.W. Bush handled the 1989-92 foreign policy challenges about as well as a President possibly could. At his age I'm not sure how much he has deteriorated mentally, but if alright upstairs he could be resource.